Self-knowledge for humans
  • Home
  • About
  • Beginner's Guide
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • The Book

Keeping It Real

9/25/2014

12 Comments

 
I start my book Self-Knowledge for Humans by talking about the challenge of discussing self-knowledge with people who haven’t studied philosophy as an academic subject. Most non-philosophers believe self-knowledge to be an interesting and worthwhile subject and are disappointed when they learn what
philosophers of self-knowledge actually talk about (“Why on earth would you be interested in that?”). The focus in philosophy has been on narrow and trivial seeming forms of self-knowledge (knowledge of one’s own beliefs and sensations) to the exclusion of what I call ‘substantial’ self-knowledge, knowledge of such
things as one’s own emotions, character, values, abilities, and concealed thoughts and desires. Questions about the extent of self-ignorance and the value of self-knowledge are addressed by some philosophers but there is still the sense that the philosophy of self-knowledge is mainly concerned to discover
technical solutions to technical problems generated by background philosophical assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the nature of mental states. 

My question is: are people right to be disappointed in the way that (most) philosophers talk about self-knowledge? Should philosophy be trying to engage with the questions about self-knowledge which interest non-philosophers or is it okay to just focus on a range of philosophical puzzles about self-knowledge (how self-knowledge be immediate? How can privileged access to one’s own mind be
reconciled with content externalism?)? 

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that self-knowledge is one area (there are many others) where it is unacceptable for philosophy to remain it its bunker and simply refuse to engage with wider concerns. Apart from being dry and difficult, it seems to me that so much of what passes for the ‘philosophy of
self-knowledge’ these days is also very boring. Self-Knowledge for Humans is, in part, a response to my own increasing sense of frustration about the way the subject has been going. I don’t know if the explanations I give in the book of the way the philosophy of self-knowledge has been going are plausible, but I’m convinced that there is something here which needs explaining. 

A parting thought: in giving talks based on the book at universities around the world I’ve noticed an interesting pattern: my frustrations about the subject and the way it has developed seem to have been shared by older but not younger members of the audiences I have addressed. Could there be something in that?   


12 Comments
Eric Campbell link
10/15/2014 10:50:03 pm

As someone whose philosophical project is centered on promoting self-knowledge and authenticity, I agree completely. I think the most important kinds of self-knowledge we can strive for include knowledge of our emotions, motives and values. This topic, properly pursued, should not be boring and dry. In my view, pursuing these forms of self-knowledge can be deeply valuable not only to the relevant individuals, but to the wider (including global) community. For what it's worth, I've argued that our moral discourse can inhibit self-knowledge and authenticity, and am working on a book project that aims to put the pursuit of just the kinds of self-knowledge you mention at the center of normative inquiry in general. Thanks a lot for your book, which I hope to be able to read soon, and for this blog post.

Reply
Quassim Cassam link
10/16/2014 02:13:12 am

Thanks Eric. I'd be interested to hear more about your book project. Feel free to email me.

Reply
lecoq link
11/3/2014 08:18:18 pm

Hello,
If you want to see selk knowledge from a philosophic point of view, you should try philosophical consultations.

Reply
Andrew Gold
12/28/2016 12:43:01 pm

Thanks, I didn't know much about Philosophical Consultations other than it existed. Now I'm reading some of the published articles I'm quite impressed.

Reply
Scott
3/13/2015 03:09:43 am

I just read "Bad Thinkers" and I found it alarming indeed, but probably not in the way you might think. The conclusions you have drawn and the solutions you present come dangerously close to some the types of arguments heard earlier in this century for exclusionary government and, in some cases, forced miscegenation. I think we know what I am referring to.

Just because some people think differently, or strangely to us, or, as you suggested "close minded" does not in any way render them defective as human beings.

And the type of education, as you seem to be suggesting, sounds more like indoctrination to me.

And by the way, I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Reply
James Dennis
3/21/2017 02:48:51 am

Given an environment that is an "infinitely differentiable manifold", what makes it possible for an organism (incl. humans) to act purposefully on their environment, and act adaptively, adjusting repeated acts having an equivalence of aim, in interaction with responses of the environment? How does active perceptual interpretation of the environment relate to this purposeful activity? What is the difference between a subject's reference to their own intentional actions on the world and their effects on the world, on the one hand, and on the other the subject's reflective reference to the reasons for their actions? How is it different for an observer? (The reasons a subject chooses to do a rather than b (as opposed to their own stated reason) may not be available to the conscious awareness of the subject.) (BTW, I don't believe a computerized big data analysis of a person's social media activity can "know that person's preferences better than the person themselves", since the program can not know anything.) How much does a subject's awareness of their own purposeful thinking activity as well as reflection on their actions, reasons and perceptual interpretations depend on language? (I take a purposeful expression of a "thought" "in the subject's head" to be an action, interiorized as it is.)

I am interested in the problem of the possibility of causal explanation of purposeful adaptive action, including social interactions and the behaviour of social institutions, as well as the critique of such actions. I foolishly started filling in this box because I've just picked up a printout of your article, "What asymmetry? Knowledge of self, knowledge of others, and the inferentialist challenge" from Synthese, and I'm wondering, should I read it? Will it help me with my social science- oriented methodological questions? (I notice now that this post is from 9/25/2014, so I guess I'm not expecting it to be read. Oh well.)

Reply
Quassim Cassam
3/21/2017 03:10:27 am

I don't think that Synthese piece will be relevant but I can think of a couple of things that you might find interesting: Timothy Wilson's book Strangers to Ourselves and Sally Haslanger's article 'Social Structure, Narrative and Explanation' in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015.

Reply
James Dennis
3/21/2017 04:25:54 pm

Wow! Thank you so much for the references. I've got the Haslanger article, plus a 2016 article of hers ("What is a (social) structural explanation?") in Philosophical Studies, that look like exactly what I need. (I'm interested in Structuralist approaches, which I take to be in the tradition of the Marburg Neo-Kantians such as Cassirer.) Thanks again for your valuable suggestion!

Jim L
10/20/2018 07:43:34 pm

Just read your Aeon essay on conspiracy theorists. It's concerning that a scientist, or analytical philosopher must go with available evidence in generating probabilistic hypotheses- regardless of peer pressure or psychological 'Trumpisms'. Look around you: in every large city, every day, you will find conspiracies of corruption. A 'conspiracy theory' is strictly defined as more than one individual sharing a theory of causality of a designated observed or hypothesized effect. The Gulf of Tonkin, safety of cigarettes, denial of climate change, overthrow of President Alliende, assassination of Ceasar, Edward Bernays' Propaganda successes, failed assassination of Hitler, murder of Saudi WashPo journalist, etc., etc. All coherent and theoretically verifiable and disconfirmable theories, publically shared, are intially 'conspired' by two cognicents. To dismiss rather than to rank probablistically every such theory is to misunderstand science, and thus the world in which we live. Are we there yet?

Reply
Tim Snow
4/11/2019 07:51:39 pm

Dear Quassim,

With all the impressive credentials that you hold and the prestigious positions to which you have attained, I find it unbelievable that you could indulge in such subdued falderal as your Ted Talk on conspiracy theories. You, of all people, should champion the human pursuit of gaining self knowledge, even if it is on controversial subjects such as 911. Are you really espousing the idea that in our endeavor to search out the truth, we should be as lemmings just following whatever governmental decrees are provided its loyal (and dumbed-down) subjects? Aristotle and Socrates would be ashamed of you! Whatever thoughts we mere mortals may contrive (philosophical or otherwise), the most important issue is that we remain FREE to contrive those thoughts. If not, then geniuses like yourself are going to put philosophers (and any other self-taught individual) out of business. Instead of philosophizing, just believe whatever your government tells you. That's the ticket! Who needs education or the ability to think for ourselves? I'm afraid that after watching your Ted Talk on the subject, you appear to be a worthy subject that would fit right in with the world of Orwell's "1984". Or do you think George Orwell was a "conspiracy theorist"?

Sincerely,
Tim Snow


Reply
Rose link
1/6/2021 11:37:10 pm

Hello niice blog

Reply
ainar interiors link
2/19/2021 04:34:56 am

Thankyou for sharing such a great content . hope you will share some more info about self improvement . its very helpful for our work also.


<b><a href="https://ainarinteriors.com/" title="accredited wellness coach certification uk">accredited wellness coach certification uk</a></b>

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Professor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick and the author of Self-Knowledge for Humans

    Archives

    September 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly